California lawmakers on Thursday approved a bill that would bar most law enforcement officers from covering their faces while carrying out official duties, a response to recent immigration enforcement actions in the Los Angeles area in which some federal agents masked their identities.
The measure, which now goes to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his signature, would prohibit local and federal officers from wearing items such as neck gaiters and ski masks while on duty. Exceptions in the bill include undercover operations, medical masks such as N95 respirators and approved tactical gear. If signed, the law would become the first statewide prohibition of its kind passed by a legislature, proponents said, though legal questions remain about applying the ban to federal agents.
.
Supporters said the measure was prompted in part by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that lifted lower court restrictions on Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in Los Angeles, clearing the way for the agency to resume broad raids. Critics of the court ruling, including Assemblymember Juan Carrillo, a Democrat, said it could allow agents to target people based on factors such as race, language or presence at specific locations.
"The decision is effectively allowing federal agents to stop suspects based solely on their race, language, or job," Carrillo said ahead of the vote. "How is anyone supposed to reasonably believe that they are law enforcement officers and not masked individuals trying to kidnap you?"
Legal scholars and state officials differ on whether California can force federal employees to comply with the ban. Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional law scholar at the University of California, Berkeley, wrote in an opinion piece that while states cannot directly regulate the federal government, federal employees are not free to ignore state rules unless complying would significantly interfere with the performance of federal duties.
Republican lawmakers and some law enforcement organizations argued the prohibition would make officers more vulnerable. State Sen. Kelly Seyarto, a Republican, said the measure could endanger officers by removing a layer of protection and deterrence. Officials in the federal government have defended the use of face coverings, saying agents have faced increased harassment in public and online.
The move in Sacramento follows months of controversy in Southern California. Federal immigration raids began in the region in June, prompting protests and the deployment of state and federal forces, including the National Guard and active-duty Marines, to support local efforts. Advocates and several state attorneys general have said the use of masks by agents generates fear in immigrant communities and complicates efforts to build trust.
Similar proposals seeking to limit masked law enforcement actions have been introduced in several other states, including Tennessee, Michigan, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, and some Democrats on Capitol Hill have proposed a federal ban. Supporters say a ban would improve accountability and public safety by making officers identifiable; opponents warn it could jeopardize undercover operations and officer safety.
Newsom has about a month to decide whether to sign the bill. Even if he approves it, state officials acknowledge uncertainty about enforcement when the subject is federal agents carrying out immigration enforcement under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security.
If enacted, the law would join a broader national debate over immigration enforcement, federal‑state authority and policing practices that has intensified after the Supreme Court ruling and the renewed presence of federal agents in Los Angeles. Legislative sponsors said they hope the measure will reassure communities and ensure transparency in law enforcement interactions.
